The other day I saw a post on Facebook about the need to rethink the practice of men holding open the door for women, as it carries some implications that might be demeaning to women. An interesting discussion that could be illuminating. I scrolled through the comments to see people’s take and instead of arguments for or against the practice it was primarily posts like, “Well I hold the door for people and they thank me”, or, “I do (or do not) like it when people hold the door for me”.
This is not an uncommon scene on social media. A broad argument or discussion topic is raised and everyone immediately refers to his or her own situation as proof for or against. I’ve done it. You probably have too. There can be value in your perspective and your experiences may play a part in shaping the discussion, but when the first thing someone says in reply to a general argument is the word “I”, it’s really hard to get much further with a fruitful discussion. It’s no longer about whether the practice of holding doors has more pros than cons, now it’s about whether the commenter is right or wrong, good or bad. It’s too personal, too sensitive, and there’s no room for mental expansion or transformation.
I’ve tried to adopt the practice in any kind of debate or discussion of no self-references. Even if I have a unique perspective or have experienced something related to the topic strongly, I don’t let myself use it. I try to think about what my core idea is and lay out a clear case for it without any appeal to my own authority. It’s a huge challenge, but when I stick to it I become a clearer thinker and it has the added bonus of making me less emotionally involved in the discussion. (I don’t always stick to it!)
If someone were to say pet funerals are silly and you had a pet funeral as a child that meant a great deal to you, could you help someone see merit in the idea without immediately letting them know it helped you? The minute you make it about you learning stops, because no one wants to offend. Discussion becomes personal attack by default. The chance for broadening horizons essentially ends, even though you may earn some sympathy and get someone to shut up.
Imagine every article, post, and argument you see not being about you, even if it’s about a topic very close to home. Think about its premises and conclusion and what it fails to account for. See if you can lay out your own ideas and agreement or objection without appeal to your experience or emotion. If you can there’s a chance all parties will learn new things. An added bonus, if someone in the discussion discovers that you have personal experience to draw from that makes you particularly passionate about a position, but chose not to build your argument around it, they will gain a tremendous amount of respect for you and your idea.